That always is the answer of the left to free speech they find troublesome: shut down dissenting voices. The NAACP, the ACLU, Google, and CFR; it's all about quelling inconvenient conservative ideas.
Those boys deserve their side being highlighted....it's about time!
Concerning the ACLU, see yesterday's Best of the Web from the Wall Street Journal. Go to:
www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008421
Citing:
www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/us/24aclu.html?ex=1306123200&en=cd8a5fd1f6941a5d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
"The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization's policies and internal administration," reports the New York Times:
"Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement," the committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals.
"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.
Given the organization's longtime commitment to defending free speech, some former board members were shocked by the proposals.
No kidding! The ACLU champions "whistleblowers" who reveal national-security secrets, but there are limits. When free speech threatens ACLU fund-raising efforts, why that just goes too far.
Amusingly, the Times couldn't find anyone who would speak in defense of the proposed policy. This is as close as anyone would come:
Anthony D. Romero, the A.C.L.U.'s executive director, said that he had not yet read the proposals and that it would be premature to discuss them before the board reviews them at its June meeting. . . .
Lawrence A. Hamermesh, chairman of the committee, which was formed to define rights and responsibilities of board members, also said it was too early to discuss the proposals, as did Alison Steiner, a committee member who filed a dissent against some recommendations. . . .
Susan Herman, a Brooklyn Law School professor who serves on the board, said board members and others were jumping to conclusions.
"No one is arguing that board members have no right to disagree or express their own point of view," Ms. Herman said. "Many of us simply think that in exercising that right, board members should also consider their fiduciary duty to the A.C.L.U. and its process ideals."
On a different subject but a similar theme, check out this passage from a Times report on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's commencement address at Boston College, which prompted some hippies to protest:
The campus African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American organization sent a letter to the administration asking that it "stop touting Secretary Rice's race and gender [sic] as justification for her invitation."
Of course, if the members of the campus African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American organization didn't want to go to a school with a commitment to diversity, they should have thought of that before enrolling at BC. (Hat tip: Tom Maguire.)
Hypocrisy, La Rochefoucauld observed, is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. The left loves to point out instances in which conservative moralists fail to abide by their ideals. This, however, is a human failing, not a left- or